New Problems For Greg Mitchell Of E&P
Important Note: As Google has now apparently begun to recrawl E&P, some sentences in Mitchell’s piece which were not initially archived are beginning to appear. However, in many instances you’ll also note that they are frequently archived at top on sites other than E&P. That suggests those sites were crawled prior to the altered E&P text. Also screencaps, below and at Hot Air document that Mitchell’s content was obviously altered after publication. My latest on Mitchell is here.
Allah posts on Editor and Publisher Editor Greg Mitchell’s current troubles regarding revising a three year old story. He also discovers a possible new case of revisionism but feels he can’t prove it. I think I found a way which will work.
Allah suggests Mitchell added two paragraphs to a story post-publication and failed to acknowledge it. The two middle paragraphs below are those. I added the ones above and below for a reason.
Each line of text below is a hyperlink to a Google advanced search looking for that particular sentence. By clicking through the links, you’ll see that Google captured the lines above and below the paragraphs in question, but not those paragraphs. In essence, it means when Google crawled and indexed the page originally, they weren’t there.
But, in general, the serious charges and wacky conspiracy theories against the photographers, and their news organizations, are largely unfounded, and politically driven, while at times raising valid questions, such as what represents "staging."
Since my first column, the same blogs are in a tizzy over the "Zombietime" site proving that the July 23 incident, in which two Red Cross ambulances were hit from the air by the Israelis, never happened. Needless to say, there is no such proof, and my favorite line comes near the end when the writer observes "Israel already admitted to carrying out the attack," adding dryly that this is "an interesting point."
Does this stop her? Alas, no. She goes on to assert that "all signs" point to a "clumsy hoax," complete with ambulances towed from a junk yard and "Red Cross workers feigning minor injuries." Perhaps the Israeli missiles were fired from the Grassy Knoll.
In that previous column (which one rightwing blog, with exquisite hypocrisy, labled a "cheap smear"), I briefly mentioned the uproar over comments made by a 23-year-old freelancer in Beirut named Bryan Denton, posted at Lightstalkers.org, a prime site for photojournalists. Denton has placed half a dozen pictures in The New York Times this summer, which would normally discredit him as a source for the rightwing bloggers, since so many of them feel that paper frequently collaborates with Hezbollah in its photo propaganda. But in this case they liked what he’d written, at least initially.
Update: Allah had some concerns that not every line outside the two graphs came up as one might expect given my approach. I suggested that was because Mitchell had altered additional text. I have made a screen cap proving that to be the case. Above, 4th line last graph, you’ll see that Mitchell wrote "Denton has placed half a dozen." That’s how his entry reads today. Below via Google, you’ll see he cleaned up other items as well when he added the graphs. It once read "Denton has placed about half a dozen."
Update: I’ve discovered additional changes supported by screen caps, but it’s redundant at this point so I’m saving the bandwidth. Mitchell altered a sentence "I introduced the uproar over comments made by a young" to read "I briefly mentioned the uproar over comments made by a 23-year-old freelancer."
Obviously, Mitchell re-writes, or edits his material without citing changes.